Religions are great fans of sacred texts, because they are a handy way to transmit beliefs to the next generation. But since religions tend to grow over time, the need for translations arise eventually, and with it comes a whole hoard of problems that has caused more than one internal skirmish in religious communities.

The one thing we hear regularly is that the Bible is so easy to read even a child can understand it. This of course begs the question: why do we create children's Bible's with lots of pictures in them and why do we tamper with the original words?

This last one is an important question, because we are told only the original words carry authority (whatever that means). So, why do we take the words and tell the story in our own words to children? Isn't it because we know that it's not the words that matter, but the ideas conveyed by those words? It is here that it gets tricky, because by changing one or more words the meaning is changed, and when the meaning is changed, so is the idea behind the meaning.

It appears words are equally important.

It is only natural that a translator must often make difficult choices to correctly convey the meaning of a text that is being translated from one language to another. And sometimes ideas get lost and are found several centuries later to everyone's amazement. This is a natural part of a process that depends on fallible humans and languages that evolve over time. But since we know that errors are common in Bible translations, why do we still insist anyone can read the Bible and understand it without any problems? How does an average reader know where the errors are and how they have affected the text?

Some suggest people should read more than one version of the Bible to get around the issue of errors. Others say people should stick to one version, and one version only to avoid confusion. How do people choose which Bible translation they should read? It depends on what church they go to, because every church has its own theology. It is theology that decides what you think is in the Bible before you even open it. It is theology that tells you what you should expect to find and what you shouldn't be looking for. This is important to recognize, because theology decides the words translators choose, and theology tells us that they are correct. It becomes even more important when we realize that every theology is biased in some direction.

Reading the Bible isn't as simple as, "Just pick a translation, any translation!" While it's true that it's better to read something rather than nothing, what we read has a profound impact on what we believe. And what we believe influences how we read the text in the first place. What we are supposed to do is to check our beliefs against the text and the text against our beliefs to see if they match, but to do so we need to make sure that the text is accurate.

And we're back at the question, "How can we know if the text is accurate."

Reading the original text can be difficult, especially since most of us have never studied Greek or Hebrew and probably never will. But it's not impossible. Computer softwares allow us to read the text with the help of a translator that explains the word for us. It's cumbersome and time consuming, but so is studying calculus and chemistry. Very few people think that our young should forgo studying just because it's time consuming. We insist they should spend over a decade in school studying subjects they may never use in the future. Education is important to us, because we know the cost of ignorance. But suddenly when it comes to the Bible, the one book that tells us how we should live, no in-depth studying is required. It is "elitist" to expect people to acquaint themselves with the original words, although only the original words are considered to convey the true meaning.

And there is a reason for this.

As long as people don't read the Bible in the original languages, they have only one choice: they have to believe what the church tells them. They have no way to verify what is being said, especially since the translation they are given was created by the church and contains therefore the specific bias the church wants people to adopt. "A faithful translation" is one that follows theology, not the original wording or intent.

And so we find that, "Just read the Bible!" isn't about following God's word as God intended it to be read. It's about protecting a certain way to read the Bible that has more to do with power structures and hierarchies than it has to do with obeying God. And because reading the Bible has to do with conformity, new findings that support a modification of theology are rejected by those who say the Bible is so easy to read even a child can do it. We're not supposed to challenge the beliefs of the church, because if we do, we won't obey the church. And if we don't obey the church, those in power won't get to keep their power. And power is what, "Just read the Bible!" is ultimately all about.

The Bible contains some inspired words of God, but not everything in the Bible is “inspired by God” 2 Tim 3:16. This statement is found in the pastoral epistles which 80% of scholars believe to be pseud epigraphic. They support a male dominated church hierarchy which replaces Christ as the ONE shepherd God set over His flock Ezek 34:23, in violation of his command to only call him teacher and leader, and equality among his disciples in Matthew 23: 8 & 10.

In her book God’s Word to Women, Katharine Bushnell advised her readers to “consult God more than books, and ask Him humbly to make thee understand what thou readest”, and to know “the Bible in its original tongues, in order the better to equip themselves to confute these fallacies”. Imagine how pleased Ms. Bushnell would be if she knew that many of the verses she wrestled with, the Pastoral Epistles and 1 Cor 14: 34 & 35, have been identified as interpolations.

Ms. Bushnell recommends approaching Bible study “like a pagan” to overcome the false views we’ve been indoctrinated with. She certainly did so in her study of the Genesis creation account. She overturns many aspects of traditional interpretation, such as the woman being made from the man’s rib (the Hebrew tsela means side), and blaming the fall of mankind on the woman (the woman that in labor and pain would bring forth children in Gen 3:16 is Israel in Rev 12: 1 – 5 who gives birth to Christ who will rule all nations with a rod of iron, which is not a curse but a blessing), which undermine the value of women in society, in church, and in their homes.

If we begin where Ms. Bushnell left off, build on what she accomplished, we will move closer to understanding of God’s will for mankind.

Reply

Kate

1/25/2019 05:03:21 am

All Bible translations twist Gen 2:18 to read that “it is not good for the man to be alone” and the solution being for God to “make a helper suitable for him”, but the man was not alone. The man was a spirit, male and female, like the angels, like we will be in the resurrection Matthew 22:30.

When we look at the Hebrew text, God said “not לֹא־ good טֹ֛וב become הֱיֹ֥ות the הָֽ human אָדָ֖ם “ and then God describes the solution to this problem “to לְ separation בַדֹּ֑ו do/make אֶֽעֱשֶׂהּ־ if only לֹּ֥ו to helpעֵזֶר opposite נֶגְדּֽוֹ “. The separation of the female from the male, like the separation of light from darkness, waters above from below, and dry land from water in Genesis 1, is to separate something good from something not good. The woman, who is identified as Israel in Gen 3:15 & Rev 12: 1 to 5, is saved from her opposite, a mighty one who seeks to rule over her in Gen 3:16.

The Hebrew noun ish which is translated mostly as man, or men, in fact means mighty one, specifically referring to one who wants to be God. In Rashi’s statement on Exodus 15:3 he said that “Wherever the words איש and אישך occur they must be translated by בעל; so, too, (1 Kings 2:2) “Be thou strong and show thyself an איש” — a mighty person”. Satan was a mighty one (Hebrew ish) Isaiah 14:16, who desired to be God, raise his throne above the stars of God, and make himself like the Most High Isaiah 14:13 & 14. The first man identified himself as a mighty one immediately after being separated from the woman in Genesis 2:23.

Adam was the mighty one (translated as husband in this case) who was with the woman when she ate from the tree in Gen 3:6. God’s punishment of the man, the ground being cursed in Gen 3: 17 to 19, being similar to Cain’s punishment for murdering his brother in Gen 4: 11 & 12, is evidence that the man was a murderer, having deceived the woman into eating from the tree they were commanded not to eat from and attempted to place the blame on her in Gen 3:12 making him a false accuser or devil.

The man was made a living being in Gen 2:7 and the serpent is identified as the craftiest of all the living beings in the land in Gen 3:1. The “serpent of old” is the devil and Satan Rev 12:9 & 20:2. Devil (Greek diabolos), is an adjective meaning slanderous, accusing falsely, and Satan (Hebrew satan and Greek Satanas), is a noun that means adversary and both terms are used interchangably in reference to the spiritual being we know as Satan, and also of mankind under his influence just as Judas was in John 6:70 & 13:2, and Luke 22:3, and Peter in Matthew 16:23. A snake is used to represent Satan and his seed because it represents the lowest form of life, crawling on its belly and eating dust as Satan slithers around the earth eating the dust of those who die as a result of his deception Gen 3:14.

The mighty ones, the men ruling over us, making us their slaves, were not put in place by God. They have kept tight control of scripture and religion so they can rule over women, making it appear to be God’s will, when the truth is that only those who seek God with all their heart and soul will find Him Deut 4:29.

Reply

Susanna Krizo

1/25/2019 10:51:19 am

Hi Kate,

There are a few problems in your second comment.

"The separation of the female from the male, like the separation of light from darkness, waters above from below, and dry land from water in Genesis 1, is to separate something good from something not good."

Darkness and water are both good and serve a purpose. We find God saying everything was good before God rested from the work of creation. If these things weren't good, God wouldn't have pronounced them good.

"The Hebrew noun ish which is translated mostly as man, or men, in fact means mighty one, specifically referring to one who wants to be God."

That a word has one meaning in place doesn't mean it has the same meaning in every instance. 'Ish refers to a male human, just as 'ishah refers to a female human. They were both created in God's Image, the only ones in creation to have such godlikeness. The woman and the man were banished from the Garden to prevent them from living forever in their new state of knowing both good and evil, a state they were never meant to be in. They were only meant to know good.

"The woman, who is identified as Israel in Gen 3:15 & Rev 12: 1 to 5, is saved from her opposite, a mighty one who seeks to rule over her in Gen 3:16."

The woman isn't identified as Israel in Gen 3:15 and she is not saved from her opposite. The newly created woman is brought to the man and the man declares her to be just like him, another human ("You are now bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh," found elsewhere in the OT to denote kinship). An equivalent is to say a child is saved from his/her mother at birth.

"...is evidence that the man was a murderer, having deceived the woman into eating from the tree they were commanded not to eat from and attempted to place the blame on her in Gen 3:12 making him a false accuser or devil."

The Bible says clearly the Serpent deceived the woman. It is also found in 2 Cor 11:3. There is a pun in the Hebrew between naked and cunning; the humans were innocent in their nakedness, whereas the Serpent was cunning and planning their downfall.

I'm not sure what to think of your comment, other than it contains numerous inaccuracies and seems to have the goal of making the woman superior to the man, which is biblically incorrect. Both the man and the woman were created in the Image of God and are therefore equal. Genesis 3:16 describes a post-fall reality in which the man seeks to rule over the woman and the woman agreeing to it in order to provide for herself and her children, the man having greater physical strength to work the now unyielding soil.

Reply

Kate

1/28/2019 03:33:58 am

There is a lot of bias in the translation of the Bible that is not apparent until we look at the original text.

In addition, when we read the Genesis creation account in English, we see only the literal meaning which reveals the physical dimension. Only by looking at the Hebrew text, can we see the figurative meaning, which provides a spiritual dimension. That is why we must study scripture in the original Hebrew and Greek because only by understanding the proper and complete meanings of God’s words can we understand His message and know His will.

The New Testament, Revelation especially because like Genesis, it is apocalyptic, shines some light on the figurative meaning.

God is light and in Him there is no darkness 1 John 1:5. God did not create darkness. Satan was perfect, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty when he was created, he was in the garden of Eden, the anointed cherub who covers/defends until unrighteousness was found in him Ezek 28:12 to 15. Satan had become darkness.

God created the light and saw that it was good and separated it from the darkness Gen 1: 3 & 4. Christ is the light that shines in the darkness that the darkness (Satan) did not comprehend John 1:5. In heaven, God illumes the city and Christ is its lamp, and there is no night Rev 21:23 & 25 & 22:5. Darkness, Satan (the adversary) and the devil (slanderer, false accuser), was not good and will be destroyed in the lake of fire after the Gog war Rev 20: 7 to 10.

Similarly, the water was pre-existing in Gen 1:2. God is the fountain of the living water Jer 2:13 & 17:13, that Christ will guide us back to Rev 7:17. God separated the waters above, the living waters, from the waters below, which are peoples, nations, tribes and tongues Rev 17:15. We must be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God John 3:5. Jesus distinguished between physical water that we drink to sustain life and the living water that gives eternal life in John 4: 7 to 14.

I haven’t fully explored the figurative meaning of the separation of the dry land and water which God said was good Gen 1:10. Israel walked on dry land through the midst of the sea in the exodus from Egypt only to wander in the wilderness for 40 years where there was no water to drink Exodus 13 to 15:19, and Jesus, full of the holy Spirit (living water), was in the wilderness for 40 days to be tempted by the devil which he did not succumb to in Luke 4: 1 to 13. Eden was the wilderness where Adam was tested and succumbed to Satan’s temptation, becoming the first prince of Tyre Ezek 28: 1 to 10.

Other than Rashi’s comment on the true meaning of the Hebrew ish, it is difficult to find anyone willing to think outside the traditional interpretation. This site does an in-depth analysis http://fathersmanifesto.net/ish.htm and identifies that translating ish as man obscures the true and honest meaning. They recognize that ish are behemah in Gen 7:2 and conclude that man is not an ish, which is true because ish is a defective form of man, a man who believes they are a god as the first man Adam did.

Christianity teaches that Eve caused the fall of mankind in the garden of Eden, but Paul said “just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and death spread to all men because all sinned for until the law sin was in the world but sin was not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over thos who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of him who was to come.” Romans 5:12 to 14. Christianity teaches that Christ was born a male because the female is weak, but Christ was born a male child Rev 12:5, to recoup what the first man had lost, eternal life 1 Cor 15:22 and rule over the earth, by remaining obedient to God and not succumbing to Satan’s temptation Luke 4: 1 to 13.

To overcome the flesh, we need to be aware of our weaknesses which are different for males and females. Males are inclined to desire to rule over others which Jesus said his followers do not do in Luke 22: 25 to 27. Females are inclined to desire a might one to rule over them, which means not calling Jesus our teacher and leader Matthew 23: 8 & 10. Females and males must overcome these desires as both Eve and Cain were instructed in Gen 3:16 & 4:7.

We must abide in Christ, walk in God’s ways, in the same manner as Christ walked John 15:10 & 1 John 2:6, not sinning 1 John 3:6, to receive festal robes, and live forever in Zion with Him and His people Zech 3: 1 to 7. Each of us must find our way to the wilderness, where Christ has made sm

Kate

1/28/2019 05:51:51 am

I noticed that the site I referenced, fathersmanifesto, that provided a thorough analysis of the Hebrew ish, in other articles uses scripture to support racism which is not in alignment with God’s will.

God is not partial, He renders to each person according to his deeds, to those who persevere in doing good – glory, honor, immortality and eternal life, to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth but unrighteousness – wrath and indignation Romans 2: 1 to 11. God is not partial Gal 2:6, and partiality is a sin James 2:9. As Paul said, there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, we are all one in Christ Jesus Gal 3:28.

Christ came to cast fire upon the earth Luke 12:49. If anyone builds on a foundation other than Christ, it will be revealed with fire. If what we have built survives we will receive a reward, if it is burned up we will suffer loss, but be saved through the fire 1 Cor 3:10 to 15. Every one of us must be tested by fire which will refine us, removing our impurities, call on God’s name and He will answer and say “they are My people” and we will say “YHVH is my God” Zech 13:9.

My apologies! I’ll need to be more cautious about the sources I use as references. I’m going to be going through the entire article to see if they draw any conclusions on the meaning of ish that I disagree with and I’ll let you know. Please let me know what you think as well.

Kate

2/1/2019 03:37:59 am

You referenced Gen 2:24 as evidence against my claim that the woman was saved from her opposite, but when you look closes at this verse, there are anomalies which may reveal it to be an interpolation, a later addition to the text to support the covenant of marriage.

In his article, On Genesis 2:24, Angelo Tosato states “A number of exegetes have adverted to a certain lack of continuity in the transition from Gen 2:23 to 2:24”, and sees it as a postexilic gloss. Tosato references scholars who also see it as a gloss - C A Simpson in The Early Traditions of Israel, C. Westermann in Creation, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, and Genesis: A Practical Commentary, also W H Schmidt in Die Schopfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift), and others who see it as “an addition” (P Weimar in Untersuchungen Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuchs supported by F. Langlamet’s positive comments on his works, and C. Dohmen in Schopfung und Tod Die Entfoltung theologischer und anthropologischer Konzeptionen in Gen 2/3.

Tosato sees Gen 2: 18 – 23 as constituting “one unit which is complete in itself, firmly structured, and artistically arranged”, and v23c is “an important key”. First, “it discloses that the whole narrative of vv 18 – 23 is also an etymological etiology (saying)”. “Thus there becomes more evident the deep coherence, even the interdependence, which exists between the saying and the preceding narrative”. Second, “it discloses that the narrative of vv 4b – 8 (the creation of Adam), so close to the narrative of vv 18-23, is also an etymological etiology. Thus the interconnection between vv 4b-8 and vv and vv 18-23 becomes more evident.” Thirdly, “it discloses the presence of a chiasmus that structures the whole narrative of Genesis 2-3 and extends the story of Genesis 2 (creation of man and woman) to the story of Genesis 3 (fall of woman and man)”. Which ends up with “the issa who compulsorily returns to is and, so to speak is reabsorbed by him (Gen 3:16, correlates to Gen 2:18-23), and, on the other hand, with Adam who compulsorily returns to and is reabsorbed by the earth (Gen 3: 17 – 19)”. He concludes that “Even a mediocre sensitivity to artistic literary composition should be sufficient, at this point, to recognize Gen 2:24 as a foreign body, and therefore to label it as a gloss.”

In the Hebrew text, the word ‘and’ precedes each sentence within the chapter except the first (Gen 2:4), but this sentence doesn’t match this pattern, however the two preceding sentences, Gen 2:25 & 3:1, start with ‘and’ indicating they are a continuation from Gen 2:23. The ‘mighty one’ was speaking in verse 23 and there is no indication that YHVH is speaking these words so if they are correct they are the words of the ‘mighty one’ and should not be used to support the covenant of marriage. The idea that a man/mighty person will leave their father and mother and cleave to ‘woman’ doesn’t fit the context of the humans whose ‘parent’ is YHWH. These inconsistencies support the theory that Gen 2:24 is “a gloss” or later addition to the text.

In Marital Imagery in the Bible, Colin Hamer admits that “the union of Genesis 2:24, unlike that of Genesis 2:23, is not a literal one-flesh union”, and sees the meaning of ‘flesh’ in this verse as metaphorical for one’s own kin or family. This breaks with the rest of the Genesis creation account which is both literal AND figurative. The idea of becoming one flesh, which clearly alludes to a sexual relationship, aligns with Gnosticism. In The Gnostic Apostle Thomas, Chapter 24, Saying 22, Jesus replies “When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner as the outer, and the upper as the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male shall not be male, and the female shall not be female: . . . then you will enter [the kingdom]." http://gnosis.org/thomasbook/ch24.html . Also, two becoming one is not in keeping with the separation theme of Genesis 1, nor the fact that Jesus came to separate Matthew 25:32, divide members in households against each other Luke 12: 49 to 53.

Ellicott’s Commentary, and Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges also support Gen 2:24 being the words of a narrator. In Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament it states the words “are not to be regarded as Adam's, first on account of the על־כּן, which is always used in Genesis, with the exception of Genesis 20:6; Genesis 42:21, to introduce remarks of the writer, either of an archaeological or of a historical character, and secondly, because, even if Adam on seeing the woman had given prophetic utterance to his perception of the m

Author

"Finding the truth is like looking for a needle in the haystack: it's easier if you use a magnet, but you need to know where to look or the magnet becomes useless. To find the truth we need to look for the "why" and not only at the "who," because the "why" explains the "who" in a way that the "who" cannot explain the "why." And when we find the truth, we find freedom." - Susanna Krizo